I cover the video game industry, write about gamers, and review video games.
You can follow me on Twitter and hit me up there if you have any questions or comments you'd like to chat about.
Disclosure: Many of the video games I review were provided as free review copies. This does not influence my coverage or reviews of these games.
I do not own stock in any of the companies I cover. I do not back any Kickstarter projects related to video games. I do not fund anyone in the industry on Patreon.

Why Day-One DLC Isn't Just Bad For Gamers, It's Bad For Business

When done properly downloadable content can add a great deal of value to games, but locked on-disc content and day-one DLC can hurt video game brands.

My colleague David Thier has a controversial piece up earlier arguing that more games should come with day-one DLC or on-disc content. These year-later-releases we’re seeing out of Bethesda are simply too late in the game’s lifespan, he argues. But if they’d come earlier, he would have bought them up in a heartbeat.

I’m not sure this applies to many of the core fans of Elder Scrolls games. After all, we’re approaching the December release of the third DLC pack from Bethesda for this game, which means the publisher thinks there’s a market remaining to tap into.

I’m not sure how many people are currently playing the game on consoles, but it’s still the fifth most-played title on Steam as of right now (behind a couple of newbies like Black Ops 2 as well as perennial favorites, Team Fortress 2 and Dota 2.)

But I understand where David’s coming from. As a fan but not a huge fan of Skyrim, he isn’t interested in playing the game this long after release and certainly not in buying up more expansions for the already-expansive title. I’m in much the same boat with Skyrim, though I suspect if it were a game I really cared about (like Dark Souls with its year-later DLC) I’d buy it right up.

And this is where David’s argument starts to become problematic.

First off, he’s speaking from the perspective of a fan but not a core fan of Skyrim.

It’s important to note that there are many people who live and breathe the Elder Scrolls games, and who continue to buy each release.

On PC these Skyrim fans tinker with all the mods and buy up the expansions and will continue to do so even if those expansions go on ad infinitum.

The same is true for lots of games and especially those with loyal followings like Mass Effect and Dark Souls and and the big shooters with their outrageous map-packs.

Where the argument becomes even more problematic is David’s argument that the on-disc content or day-one DLC is simply a non-issue.

Here’s David:

I’m familiar with the arguments against day-one and on-disc DLC – making it takes away from production of the main game, publishers are locking a part of something you should have already bought for $60, and so forth. The problem is that they make no sense. The problem is I don’t care. I don’t care what’s on the little plastic disc I buy at the store, nor do I care when it was made. I don’t care what each developer was doing on any given day of the cycle, I don’t care when the game was finished. The physical disc is not what’s important to me.

What’s important to me is that anything I pay $60 for should be worth $60. That’s it. Most games aren’t worth $60, but that’s an entirely different problem. I’m no videogame producer, and if people in charge of production schedules can find a way to get me a $60 product and a $15 expansion on the same day, great.

If you think that the developer has unfairly locked its content away on the disc, the heart of that problem is that you don’t think that the available product is worth $60. In that case, don’t buy it. Or wait for a sale. That’s how consumer choices work.

So look, I’m a huge fan of DLC—a huge fan of the idea and promise of DLC at least. There are many ways it can be done right, including the Spartan Ops DLC in the recently released Halo 4, the new content in Dark Souls, or the Captain Scarlett DLC for Borderlands 2.

This is designed to keep players playing and build a continued hype around the game. Replay value for the consumer is good for the publisher and developer, especially if they decide to release paid DLC later on.

Or you could go with the Borderlands 2 model and offer new content relatively soon after launch, but make it unique and new and fun enough to justify the cost.

Gearbox released its first major DLC about a month after the game came out, which was pretty perfectly timed for a lot of gamers. More is on the way, too.

Both these models fit David’s criteria by releasing new content before the old content grows stale. Both also fit my criteria by releasing new content that wasn’t siphoned off from the original game and repackaged as optional content to raise the game’s profit margin.

And while I agree that it all boils down to consumer choice, I don’t think consumer choice paints the whole picture. We should take into account how these models work (or don’t work) for businesses.

I think David is correct that getting DLC out to consumers quickly is important. I think he’s also correct that consumers have the choice to not purchase the game or its downloadable content.

But that’s only half the picture. Maintaining good public relations for these video game brands is vitally important—more so now than ever before in the video game industry.

With many companies apparently working tirelessly in an effort to convince gamers that they’re after one thing and one thing only, and that games and their audience take a backseat to the almighty dollar, it’s critical that publishers and developers rethink their DLC policies and begin examining the best DLC models out there.

I’m not saying that everybody should adopt the CDProjekt RED approach to DLC. It’s unrealistic to think that free DLC forever will be a sustainable or practical model for every company, and wishful thinking to demand it.

I also agree with David that the most fundamental question is whether a game is worth its sticker price, but I think locked on-disc content in particular devalues a game right off the bat. It’s not just a disc you’re purchasing—that disc is just a vessel for code—you’re purchasing a game. So why is finished content locked away on launch day?

Bottom line, I get where David is coming from here, and I think he’s right to urge better-scheduled releases of new content and smarter consumer decision-making.

But any publisher thinking about locking content on disc or releasing it as day-one DLC should think again.

Even if the content was made after the game wrapped and even if the title is worth every last shiny penny, there’s still brand reputation to consider. There’s still mistrust and doubt in consumers’ minds when they see that content available for a little extra on the side.

Maintaining that reputation can cost money in the short-term, but it’s an invaluable long-term strategy. A small price to pay, really, for more consumer friendly downloadable content.

Update: Comment Rescue

Commenter C.Byrne makes a very astute point about rewarding new game sales with day-one DLC that I think is very much on target:

On the other hand Day One DLC can help give a developer a good reputation if it is used to reward people for buying a new copy, rather than a second hand copy – and if the DLC really does add more to the game than a couple of guns and armours.

Bioware used to do this very well, DAO had not one but two sets of Day one DLC – Stone Prisoner and Wardens Keep. The former was free DLC for anyone who bought a new copy, the was only free for those who bought the collectors edition.

ME2 followed a similar pattern, in that the Cerberus network provided free DLC to those who’d bought a new copy.

By the time of DA2 the ‘free’ DLC wasn’t worth it, consisting of items of questionable use or interest in the game, and by ME3 the ‘free’ DLC was a total insult.

It isn’t clear why BW changed its practices, the cynical would say it was a desire to squeeze as much money out of people as possible. But I suspect that it *may* have been related to poor DLC sales for the earlier games (DAO especially), which may have given them the opinion that the costs of providing such DLC was not offset by increased DLC sales. Of course this ignores the boost to a developers reputation, which makes it more likely that people will talk about the game in a positive light.

In the case of DAO and ME2 the sales figures show a sharp rise several weeks in, which can only have come from word of mouth sales. However developers seem disinterested in anything but the first two weeks of sales, and then DLC sales, choosing to ignore the advantages of pleasing customers from the start may have on sales over the longer term – providing of course that the base game is fairly decent to start with.

I think they need to start thinking of Day One DLC not as a way to make money, but as a form of PR to improve the games (and developers) reputation. Sure its a risk, but if they are as confident in a game as they pretend to be then this really shouldn’t be such a risk should it?

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

Comments

Right one man! Best part about Elder Scroll DLC is all it adds to the lore of the world. IF you are a huge lore buff with the ES series, each new DLC has alot of potential implications to the a hell of a lot in the series.

If you are a fan of the setting(just like if you were a fan of a comic/book/tv series) it wouldnt matter “when” it was realease to get you interested, only its existence.

If anything day-one DLC and on disc DLC hurts the IP more, by continuing to perpetuate the idea that a video game is only that, and not a IP to be followed and become attached to, setting wise, much in the same way you do a book or tv series.

We need IP’s to have the mindset of creating fans of the setting more so then jsut the game, and by treating their IP and the gamer as a potential long term fan, I think they will in the long term, out reap the benefits of the much more short sighted day one dlc and on disc dlc.

There’s no inherent issue with having to pay for DLC, since when you think of DLC as being another form of expansion then it’s not too hard to justify the price and I agree, free DLC is simply not practical for many companies: Just because CD Projekt RED can do it doesn’t mean everyone can.

In saying this, the issue with Day-One DLC is that it feels as if developers and publishers are giving their consumers the finger; The big “F You”.

They’re effectively telling us that more content is ready and right under our nose on the DVD of the very game we just paid good money for… but we can’t unlock it unless we pay more money for it.

The “industry” may wonder why people don’t like this, they may be confused as to why we feel the whole ordeal is a joke, but from my perspective I feel incredibly cheated. More-so when we’re not actually told it’s on the disc and we find out for ourselves.

The whole situation is incredibly sneaky. I don’t see why I should pay for something that is already on the thing I paid for. For me it feels malicious and, simply put, incredibly rude.

Actually, the worst part may be that it’s considered illegal to then go into the disc and crack the content so that you can use it, like some people did with Mass Effect 3′s Day-One DLC. That’s just plain insulting. It’s -illegal- to try and access the data that I, quite frankly, already paid for in the first place.

Just because developers don’t tell us and try to sneak it past us as actual DLC (which it isn’t – you don’t download any of the actual content) doesn’t mean crap, as far as I’m concerned. If I paid for a disc-copy of the game then I should be entitled to access whatever is on the disc.

I’m not talking about ownership or copyrights here, I’m talking about simply being able to access and use every byte of data on a disc I already paid for. That’s it. If I downloaded the game to begin with I doubt this would be a major issue (because then we could argue that it is DLC, at least).

Actually, is good for me that Bethesda’s DLC release cycle is quite long. I made very grave mistake to complete the whole stories while the game have only little mod whatsoever. Even with many awesome mods I have downloaded, my enthusiasm didn’t comeback. Alduin and his brother, Paarthunax didn’t hold my interest no longer.

With the release of such DLC, like unbias have said, It would probably for me to get back my enthusiasm to play with many awesome mods and dwell into the lore again. As you can see, although Elder Scroll worlds still filled with many generics fantasy tropes, there is one aspect that make me obsessed (kinda). And that is Daedra Prince(s). Their personality, realm sphere, and interest is not like your ordinary god(s).

Bethesda should focus on them for the next installment. Shivering Island is one good choice when the game focused to one of those Daedra Princes.

A great example of the correlation between reputation and long term profit would be Obsidian.

Consumers knew they were the legendary Game developers formerly known as Black Isle and they trusted they would bring a quality product. I’ve played a few of their Black Isle games such as Fallout 2 and Planescape Torment and they still stand up today among the best RPG’s to date. As soon as Black Isle went down and Obsidian rose from the ashes, their quality has not waned. I have played their recent work such as NWN2:MOTB (beats Planescape’s Story in my opinion) and Fallout:NV(Fallout 2 personality).

As soon as people heard about Project Eternity, long time fans of Black Isle/ Obsidian who’ve come to trust their work immediately pledged money on the Project. You’d only have to check out all of Erik’s articles on PE to see how successful the Project was.

I’ve wondered for some time now why developers/publishers don’t use the broad acceptance of DLC and the availability of broadband internet to modularize their work. Sell the core game for 20, and add a couple of DLC of various size at day one – depending on the genre these may be weapons, maps, playstyles, added story, added micromanagement, additional characters, epilogue, and so on. That way you’ll reach a lot of people for whom 20 is below the pain threshold (especially if it is a resellable physical copy), and those who like what they play can buy the DLC (which is not resellable, this day and age) to get the ‘full experience’. I mean the trial-normal-premium model of sales works for most other software, why not for games?

I don’t agree with you about DLC at all (the actual “DLC” part and not game Expansions mislabeled as DLC, like they did with GTAIV) and want to demonstrate on the example of Borderlands 2.

I knew that they artificially increased the game price through all bunch of “DLC” out of the door and as such decreased the games worth for me.

From the start there was Borderlands 2, which cost up to 60€ on launch, then they had their “Season Pass”, which cost 30€ from the start, and shortly after release one of their founders was talking how “all additional DLC isn’t even included in that Season Pass”: http://www.joystiq.com/2012/09/23/borderlands-2-will-have-non-season-pass-dlc-pitchford-promise/ (for after which I ask myself, why offer it in the first place then?) adding to the game price to a probable cost of somewhere ~110-120€ for a single game.

This doesn’t show me that they’re “willing to support the game” or whatever the hell else they think it might, but that they’re simply trying to extract as much money as possible from the product and I’d rather wait till they got it all together and I can buy the finished game cheap at some point down the line. For instance I bought the first Borderlands on a Steam Sale for 5€ with everything included and that’s likely what I’ll do with Borderlands 2 too.

On the other hand I usually buy games that don’t partake in the DLC shenanigans at full price on launch (or even Pre-Order) e.g. things like Portal 2, Witcher 2, Dark Souls: PTD, X-COM: Enemy Unknown, Natural Selection 2 etc. and a lot of Indie games and KickStarter.

For instance for the last few weeks I’ve been catching up with the “Wadjet Eye Games” Adventures (Gemini Rue, Resonance, Blackwell Series, Emerald City Confidential) and bought a few of those (on the large, they’re quite good if you are into Adventures) instead of partaking in most of the new “AAA” releases.

See, from where I’m standing Borderlands 2 had plenty of content out the gates—easily enough to justify the cost. The added DLC is just a nice way for serious fans to get more content, and it’s not badly priced at all. I’m not as happy with the additional class, on the other hand. That was kind of lame.

On the other hand, you bring up some games that are great examples of additional content coming out later either for free or (as with Dark Souls) at a very fair price given the amount of new content added. So even there, DLC has its value.

I’d say we’re fortunate enough that most games with planned DLC post-launch usually have a decent amount of content at release to satisfy most players, the DLC being extra tidbits for those who still crave more from the game.

In the case of games such as Borderlands 2, Skyrim or even The Witcher 2, the DLC is hardly necessary. Both of these games already contain a massive amount of content without DLC and so if you don’t want the DLC there’s no obligation to get it.

I understand The Witcher 2′s DLC is free but DLC is DLC and, quite frankly, I’d have been quite willing to pay for most of the content CD Projekt RED made for the game post-launch.

No matter how much you love a game, you are always done with it at some point, even if for a short period. DLC releasing later, gives you the break you need.

I used to feel that buying RPGs was a way to get more value for your money. They used to try to put as much as possible into them. Now publisher looks at what is worth 60$ and the rest should be DLC. I much prefer the later mentality.

The only way DLC hurts business is if it creates a loss for you, whether in the presence or within future sales of a company’s games.

Personally, DLC to me has been a huge deterrent to buying games on day 1. There is ultimately no point to pay $100 to get all the content, as opposed to waiting 3 months and buying the original game, as well as all the DLC for less than $20.